scholarly journals Quantity Over Quality? Reproducible Psychological Science from a Mixed Methods Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hollen N. Reischer ◽  
Henry R. Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Study Designs

A robust dialogue about the (un)reliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years. In response, metascience researchers have developed innovative tools to increase rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, stimulating rapid improvement and adoption of open science practices. However, existing reproducibility guidelines are geared toward purely quantitative study designs. This leaves some ambiguity as to how such guidelines should be implemented in mixed methods (MM) studies, which combine quantitative and qualitative research. Drawing on extant literature, our own experiences, and feedback from 79 self-identified MM researchers, the current paper addresses two main questions: (a) how and to what extent do existing reproducibility guidelines apply to MM study designs; and (b) can existing reproducibility guidelines be improved by incorporating best practices from qualitative research and epistemology? In answer, we offer 10 key recommendations for use within and outside of MM research. Finally, we argue that good science and good ethical practice are mutually reinforcing and lead to meaningful, credible science.

scholarly journals Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-279
Author(s):  
Isabel Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Participatory Technologies ◽  
Digital Knowledge

Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.

scholarly journals The Inappropriateness of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) with Learner’s Goals: A Need Analysis on Communication and Islamic Broadcasting Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
St. Hartina ◽  
Syahrir Syahrir
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Short Duration ◽  
English For Specific Purposes ◽  
Learning Method ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Need Analysis ◽  
Repetitive Learning

The course of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is supposed to prepare students for the professional sector, yet the course at IAIN Palopo in Indonesi is designed in general English without any professional input or assessment of the learner's needs. This research is motivated by the Communication and Islamic Broadcasting program students’ complaints of unsatisfaction with the course since it does not meet their needs. This research aims to examine the English needs of students studying in the communication and Islamic broadcasting program. The researchers used a mixed-methods strategy that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative research. The participants in this study were 60 undergraduates and 30 graduate students. Data was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. The data was then analyzed using the comprehensive concept of need analysis proposed by Dudley-Evans & St. John (1998). The results revealed that the majority of students learn English to help them advance in their careers. Their top priority in ESP is to improve their speaking skills, followed by listening, reading, and writing. Due to the repetitive learning method, inappropriate textbook, and short duration, according to the interview results, the students were also unsatisfied with the present ESP course.

scholarly journals Using Mixed-methods Research in Health & Education in Nepal

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 45-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Preeti Mahato ◽  
Caterine Angell ◽  
Edwin Van Teijlingen ◽  
Padam P Simkhada
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Education ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Pragmatic Research

In the areas of health promotion and health education, mixed-methods research approach has become widely used. In mixed-methods research, also called multi-methods research, the researchers combine quantitative and qualitative research designs in a single study. This paper introduces the mixed-methods approach for use in research in health education. To illustrate this pragmatic research approach we are including an example of mixed-methods research as applied in Nepalese research.Journal of Health Promotion Vol.6 2008, p.45-48

scholarly journals Research Methods

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie Williams
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Font Size ◽  
Report Writing ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Conducting Research

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-justify: inter-ideograph; text-align: justify; margin: 0in 34.2pt 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This paper discusses three common research approaches, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, along with the various research designs commonly used when conducting research within the framework of each approach. Creswell (2002) noted that quantitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and writing the results of a study, while qualitative research is the approach to data collection, analysis, and report writing differing from the traditional, quantitative approaches. This paper provides a further distinction between quantitative and qualitative research methods. This paper also presents a summary of the different research methods to conduct research in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies.</span></span></p>

Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Sampling Strategies

Education ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy C. Guetterman
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Sampling Strategies ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Purposeful Sampling ◽  
Relationship Of

Sampling is a critical, often overlooked aspect of the research process. The importance of sampling extends to the ability to draw accurate inferences, and it is an integral part of qualitative guidelines across research methods. Sampling considerations are important in quantitative and qualitative research when considering a target population and when drawing a sample that will either allow us to generalize (i.e., quantitatively) or go into sufficient depth (i.e., qualitatively). While quantitative research is generally concerned with probability-based approaches, qualitative research typically uses nonprobability purposeful sampling approaches. Scholars generally focus on two major sampling topics: sampling strategies and sample sizes. Or simply, researchers should think about who to include and how many; both of these concerns are key. Mixed methods studies have both qualitative and quantitative sampling considerations. However, mixed methods studies also have unique considerations based on the relationship of quantitative and qualitative research within the study.

Distinguishing Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Response to Morgan

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Maxwell
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
The One

This is a response to Morgan’s article ( Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268-279) on the qualitative/quantitative distinction. I argue that Morgan has mischaracterized my views on this distinction, and on the value of design typologies in mixed methods research, and that the qualitative/quantitative distinction is more productively framed on a different basis than the one he proposed.

scholarly journals Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110265
Author(s):  
Jes L. Matsick ◽  
Mary Kruk ◽  
Flora Oswald ◽  
Lindsay Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Feminist Psychology ◽  
Feminist Scholarship ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Science Movement

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

scholarly journals Clearinghouse Standards of Evidence on the Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility of Intervention Evaluations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Sean Grant ◽  
Lauren Supplee
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Social Interventions ◽  
Registration Data ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Intervention Evaluations

Clearinghouses are influential repositories of information on the effectiveness of social interventions. To identify which interventions are “evidence-based”, clearinghouses evaluate empirical research using published standards of evidence that focus on study design features. Study designs that support causal inferences are necessary but insufficient for intervention evaluations to produce true results. The use of open science practices can improve the probability that evaluations produce true results and increase trust in research. In this study, we examined the degree to which the policies, procedures, and practices of 10 federal evidence clearinghouses consider the transparency, openness, and reproducibility of intervention evaluations. We found that seven clearinghouses consider at least one open science practice: replication (6 of 10 clearinghouses), public availability of results (6), investigator conflicts of interest (3), design and analysis transparency (3), study registration (2), and protocol sharing (1). We did not identify any policies, procedures, or practices related to analysis plan registration, data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, and citation standards. Clearinghouse processes and standards could be updated to promote research transparency and reproducibility by reporting whether evaluations used open science practices, incorporating open science practices in their standards for receiving “evidence-based” designations, and verifying that evaluations used open science practices. Doing so could improve research quality, increase trustworthiness of evidence used for policy making, and support the evidence ecosystem to adopt open science practices.

scholarly journals Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Steinhardt
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Bachelor's Degrees ◽  
Participatory Technologies ◽  
Digital Knowledge

Openness in science and education is increasing in importance within the digital knowledge society. So far, less attention has been paid to teaching Open Science in bachelor’s degrees or in qualitative methods. Therefore, the aim of this article is to use a seminar example to explore what Open Science practices can be taught in qualitative research and how digital tools can be involved. The seminar focused on the following practices: Open data practices, the practice of using the free and open source tool “Collaborative online Interpretation, the practice of participating, cooperating, collaborating and contributing through participatory technologies and in social (based) networks. To learn Open Science practices, the students were involved in a qualitative research project about “Use of digital technologies for the study and habitus of students”. The study shows the practices of Open Data are easy to teach, whereas the use of free and open source tools and participatory technologies for collaboration, participation, cooperation and contribution is more difficult. In addition, a cultural shift would have to take place within German universities to promote Open Science practices in general.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document